Developer escapes having to pay £2m extra to council
Developers behind plans for hundreds of new Edinburgh flats have escaped having to pay an extra £2m to the council after complaining that their education contributions had been decided on the toss of a coin.
Artisan Real Estate bosses had suggested a legal challenge could be made against the authority for leaving the fate of their application up to chance.
The plans were brought back before councillors for reconsideration last week and granted permission again – but this time with a recommended £1m contribution toward local education infrastructure.
The proposal will deliver 256 low-carbon flats at 525 Ferry Road, 70 per cent of which will be for social rent with a quarter of the homes affordable.
The existing office block will be demolished to make way for the residential development, which will include several commercial units and a large central communal garden.
Councillor Neil Gardiner, who previously backed bumping this up to £3m, said as the hearing was re-run he had looked at the plans “with fresh eyes” and would “park my view on the education provision”.
The increased sum was approved by a coin toss last time after councillors voted 4-4 between the two options. Convener Hal Osler, one of three in favour of rejecting the planning application altogether, waived her casting vote, deciding to draw lots to decide the outcome instead.
Developers then said the decision “could delay or put in jeopardy the delivery of this much needed housing” and wrote to council chiefs saying the process was considered to be “procedurally flawed due to the decision being made on the toss of a coin”.
In an email to councillors chief planner David Givan argued there was a “basis for de
The proposal will deliver 256 lowcarbon flats, 70 per cent of which will be for social rent
cision making to made in this way” but added there was “ambiguity in the process which could result in the decision being legally challenged”.
However not everyone appeared to have received the memo explaining why the hearing was being re-run in response to legal concerns. Cllr Lezley Marion-Cameron said “There’s been nothing sent to us by planning or legal as to why we’re hearing this application again.”